Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: Neibor's dog

I generally agree with Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Stone, especially with their advice that you not use "The dog is old anyway" as a defense.

You might be better off stressing the efforts you made to get the neighbor to keep his dog from getting out and spreading filth and disease on your private property. The neighbor had a duty (and maybe there is a local municipal ordinance on this) to prevent his dog from roaming around without a leash and doing this, especially after you warned him that you objected to the dog's trespasses on your property. There is some contributory negligence on the part of the neighbor, in my view.

But as the other lawyers answering your question observed, shooting the dog was definitely poor judgment. And I don't know what kind of community you live in, whether it is rural or urban, there is always danger that a stray bullet could injure a human being. Many cities have ordinances that prohibit firing a gun within city limits, except in self-defense of yourself or another human being. If Fido was not a lunging pit bull or a Rottweiler with blood in his eye for human flesh, you will probably have to pay at least the vet bills.

I would recommend that you call your insurance company, if you have homeowner's insurance, or hire a lawyer yourself, if you have no insurance or if the insurance co. will not provide you with one.

Re: Neibor's dog

Of course he has a case against you. More importantly, you are likely to be prosecuted for animal cruelty (and perhaps other charges). You can look forward to a large judgment against you and a lengthy jail term.

You can only shoot an animal if it poses a threat. That it might have defecated on your property does not come remotely close to justifying your actions.

Re: Neibor's dog

Shooting the dog was poor judgment on your part -- over what, dog poop?

The owner could well sue for animal cruelty as well as pressing criminal charges.

Your other mistake was poor marksmanship. If you had killed the dog you might have to pay the fair market value of the dog, now you could be sued for vet bills. This old, half-blind, lame dog will be brought into court as evidence against you. The court clerks will be weeping, and steam will be coming out of the judge's ears as the verdict is rendered against you.

If I were you I would forget about the "Dog is old anyway" defense.

Re: Neibor's dog

I disagree with Mr. Stone's view that if you had killed the dog you would only have to pay its fair market value in compensation. That would be true if you had killed livestock, but the law treats pets differently. Killing livestock generally causes only economic harm to the owner, but killing a pet causes emotional harm as well -- to both the owner and the immediate family. The owners of a wrongly killed pet would be entitled to damages for that harm.

Of course, seriously wounding a pet also causes emotional harm to the owners. That harm will be part of the damages for which your neighbor will be entitled to compensation. That's in addition to the vet bills that Mr. Stone mentioned.